A good example is ỉrỉ-p t. This may have had a specific meaning in the Predynastic period, but by the time it is first attested, in the middle of the First Dynasty (Emery 1958:60, pl. 83.1), it seems to have designated membership of the ruling élite (p t), as opposed to the general populace (rh yt). More specifically, it is likely that the p t were royal kinsmen (Baines 1995:133), for whom the highest echelons of government were reserved until the threshold of the Old Kingdom. On the stela of Merka, from the reign of Qaa (Emery 1958: pl. 39), the title appears in a prominent position, subordinate only to s(t)m, indicating the status (and political power?) attached to being an ỉrỉ-p t in the First Dynasty.
Another title with possible Predynastic significance is ỉrỉ-Nh n, ‘keeper of Nekhen’ (cf. Fischer 1996:43–5). When Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) was an important centre, playing a pivotal role in the process of state formation, the ‘keeper of Nekhen’ may have been a prestigious position. By the Early Dynastic period, however, the meaning of the title may have been lost (at least, it is impenetrable to modern scholars), leaving ỉrỉ-Nh n as an honorific designation borne by high officials, for example Nedjemankh in the reign of Netjerikhet (Weill 1908:180; Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 324). Two possible courtly titles of unknown meaning from the early part of Den’s reign are ỉ , associated with Ankh-ka and Sekh-ka (Petrie 1900: pls XXI.29, XXII.30; Emery 1958: pls 80–1,106.4) and rp(?), associated with the latter (Petrie 1900: pl. XXII.30; Emery 1958: pl. 106.4).
However, even the reading of the two groups of signs is uncertain, and they may not represent titles at all.
A number of different titles expressed the position of the holder within the circles of power which surrounded the ruler. Merka, at the end of the First Dynasty, was šms-nswt, ‘a follower of the king’ (Emery 1958: pl. 39), while an official of the Second or Third
Dynasty was content to call himself hm-nswt, ‘servant of the king’ (Lacau and Lauer 1965:36, no. 47). A parallel title may be the one borne by the king’s sandal-bearer on the Narmer palette and macehead (Winter 1994). In both cases the title may perhaps be read as ‘servant of the ruler’. A more exalted position was indicated by the title hrỉ-tp nswt, ‘chief one of the king’, mentioned in inscriptions from the late Second and Third Dynasties (Petrie 1901: pl. XXI.165; Junker 1939; Lacau and Lauer 1965:33, no. 43). Akhetaa, who lived during the latter half of the Third Dynasty, appears to have been one of the king’s innermost circle of advisors, if the meaning of his title ‘privy to all the secrets and affairs of the king’ (hrỉ sšt3 nb h t nbt n nswt) is to be taken at face value (Weill 1908:262–73). (Note, however, that some commentators have identified hrỉ-sšt3 as a religious title [cf. Fischer 1996:45–9 who reads the title zhy-n r].) Pehernefer’s title, hrỉ-s m, ‘he who has the ear (of the king)’ would also seem to indicate a position at the very centre of the court, even though the king is not mentioned explicitly.
Another category of courtly titles makes reference to particular chambers within the palace as a way of indicating proximity to the king. The titles held by some members of the court in present-day Britain may be cited as parallels, for example, ‘Lord Chamberlain’ (the person having control over many of the royal household’s employees). In ancient Egypt, access to the innermost rooms of the palace must have brought with it access to the person of the ruler, considerable prestige which went with this access, and perhaps real influence in the decision-making processes of government. Titles in this category are attested only in the reign of Qaa and in the Third Dynasty, but they must have existed throughout the Early Dynastic period. Two titles are connected with the running of the palace itself ( h). The official Merka in the reign of Qaa bore the title h rp h, ‘controller (perhaps ‘comptroller’ would be a better English equivalent) of the palace’ (Emery 1958: pl. 39). Abneb, who lived in the late Second or early Third Dynasty, held a similar position, ỉmỉ-r3 h, ‘overseer of the palace’ (Weill 1908:220). Within the palace, two chambers seem to have been of particular significance: ỉz, sometimes translated as ‘council chamber’, and zh, possibly ‘dining-hall’ or ‘audience chamber’. Thus an ỉmỉ-ỉz, ‘one who is in the council chamber’ (Lacau and Lauer 1965:16, no. 21), and a smsw-ỉz, ‘elder of the council chamber’, are known from the Third Dynasty (Gardiner and Peet 1952: pl. I). At the end of the First Dynasty, Merka, as well as being comptroller of the palace as a whole, was also ‘comptroller of the audience chamber’ (h rp zh); this title was later held by Pehernefer at the end of the Third Dynasty. Merka’s contemporary, Sabef, described himself as ‘foremost of the audience chamber’ (h ntỉ- zh), whilst Ankh, an official who lived early in the Third Dynasty, was simply a ‘functionary of the audience chamber’, ( ỉrỉ-h t zh) (Weill 1908:185).
The vizier
We now come to the position at the very head of the administration, the official closest to the king. At different stages of the Early Dynastic period, this person bore the titles t and t3ỉtỉ z3b 3tỉ (Figure 4.5). An individual designated as t is the earliest attested official of any kind, depicted on the Narmer palette. He walks in front of the king, carrying what appears to be an item of the royal regalia. On the Narmer macehead he appears again, this time standing behind the enthroned king, where he is labelled simply
as . The meaning of the title is uncertain, but the position of the holder vis-à-vis the king seems clear enough.
It is tempting to link this title with the one borne by the vizier in later periods: 3tỉ, or in its fuller form, t3ỉtỉ z3b 3tỉ. The vizier stood at the head of the Egyptian administration and was responsible directly to the king for the government of the country. The position was certainly in existence by the beginning of the Third Dynasty. The earliest-known holder of the title was a man named Menka who is mentioned on a number of ink inscriptions from beneath the Step Pyramid (Lacau and Lauer 1965:1, no. 1). These may date to the middle of the Second Dynasty (Shaw and Nicholson 1995:15), perhaps to the reign of Ninetjer (Helck 1979). Alternatively, it is possible that the construction of the Step Pyramid, which must have required a degree of administrative organisation and
Figure 4.5 The titles of the vizier. The earliest attested reference to the highest administrative office in Egypt, written in ink on a stone vessel from the Step Pyramid complex of Netjerikhet at Saqqara. The inscription, which probably dates to the middle of the Second Dynasty, names the vizier as Menka, and gives the tripartite title associated with the vizierate throughout Egyptian history, t3ỉtỉ z3b 3tỉ (after Lacau and Lauer 1965: pl. 1.3).
sophistication previously unknown in Early Dynastic Egypt, necessitated the creation of a new executive post at the head of the government apparatus, to oversee all its activities and report directly to the king. The viziers of the Third and early Fourth Dynasties seem to have been royal princes, perhaps younger sons removed from the direct line of succession. Only in the reign of Menkaura was the position ‘opened up’ to a commoner (Husson and Valbelle 1992:37).
The tripartite title held by a vizier may indicate the threefold nature of his authority. The first element, t3ỉtỉ, emphasises the courtly aspect of the office. The literal meaning of t3ỉtỉ is ‘he of the curtain’, an epithet reminiscent of positions in the Ottoman court. In Early Dynastic Egypt, it may have carried an ancient significance of which we are unaware. The second element, z3b, is usually translated ‘noble’, and was probably no more than a general designation for an official. Some scholars have interpreted the term as expressing the judicial aspect of the vizierate (Husson and Valbelle 1992:37); certainly, in later periods the vizier was the highest legal authority in the land under the king, the ultimate court of appeal (barring an appeal to the king himself), and the official who decided important legal cases. The third part of the title, t3tỉ, cannot be translated, but may designate the administrative aspect of the vizier’s office. It is perhaps related to the t of Narmer’s reign. The three component elements of the title may originally have been separate and distinct (Husson and Valbelle 1992:36), but it is equal
ly possible that they were used in conjunction from the very beginning, to describe the highest position in the administration.
Perhaps as a further indication of rank, viziers of the Old Kingdom generally bore the additional title ỉrỉ-p t. It may be no coincidence that the two earliest-known holders of the title were buried at North Saqqara, overlooking the seat of Early Dynastic government. It is tempting to identify the owners of all the major tombs at North Saqqara—including S3506 and S3505, each built for an ỉrỉ-p t—as ‘proto-viziers’; in other words, the officials at the head of the national administration (cf. Baines 1995:138).
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROVINCES
State control of the means of production, achieved through the mechanism of royal foundations, gave the court a ready-made network of institutions and administrators by which to exercise political control over the provinces. The system was best developed in the Delta, where the majority of royal foundations were probably located. It is thus in the context of Lower Egypt that the earliest evidence for regional administration is found.
Lower Egypt
At least as early as the middle of the First Dynasty, the Delta seems to have been divided into two for administrative purposes. Sealings from the tomb of Merneith refer, in one case, to the ‘fields of the west’, in another to the eastern Delta (Petrie 1900: pl. XXIII.37– 8; Martin-Pardey 1976:17). The administrative division of the Delta was apparently maintained until the Third Dynasty—as indicated on a sealing from Beit Khallaf mastaba K5, dated to the reign of Netjerikhet (Garstang 1902: pl. XXVI.8; Weill 1908:86)—when a widespread reorganisation of regional government seems to have taken place.
The titles most closely connected with provincial administration in Second and Third Dynasty sources are hq3 hwt- 3t and c -mr (Martin-Pardey 1976:24, 54, 57). Both seem to refer exclusively to localities in Lower Egypt, especially in the western Delta. The connection with the administration of royal domains and estates is clear. Throughout the First Dynasty, the title -mr, ‘administrator’, was borne by officials in charge of domains and their produce. Likewise, the other title, hq3 hwt- 3t, ‘governor of the great estate’, may originally have designated the official responsible for the royal mortuary estate, since this is the likely meaning of hwt- 3t (Husson and Valbelle 1992:28). Although -mr is the usual title for a provincial administrator in the Third Dynasty (for example, in the inscription of Metjen), it may have been replaced by hq3 hwt- 3t in the Old Kingdom when the former title retained purely ranking significance (Martin-Pardey 1976:43, 54, 45). Since both titles are of great antiquity— -mr is first attested in the reign of Djet, while a hwt- 3t is first mentioned on the stela of Sabef from the reign of Qaa—it is impossible to determine at which point they began to be applied to the sphere of provincial administration, rather than the management of royal land-holdings.
Developing, as it did, out of the system of domain administration – with both ideological and functional links to the court—provincial government of Lower Egypt seems to have maintained much closer links with the residence than did the government of the Upper Egyptian regions. During the Early Dynastic period and into the Old Kingdom, the regional administrators of the Delta may have resided at Memphis, rather than in the province(s) for which they had responsibility (Husson and Valbelle 1992:53). Even though at the end of the Third Dynasty Metjen was both priest of the local god of Letopolis and -mr of the Letopolite nome, there does not appear to have been an explicit link between political and priestly office in Lower Egypt (Martin-Pardey 1976:42).
Upper Egypt
Evidence for the early administration of Upper Egypt is extremely scarce. It has been suggested that the ancient title ỉrỉ-Nh n was held by the ‘governor of the Upper Egyptian regional capital’ (Kaplony 1963, I: 450), though there is no evidence to support such an interpretation (Martin-Pardey 1976:37). In the light of recent evidence from Elephantine, an alternative suggestion, that ỉrỉ-Nh n was the title of the fortress-commander responsible for guarding Egypt’s southern frontier (Martin-Pardey 1976:38), must also be rejected. None the less, a distinctive pattern of central control—indicated by different titles—seems to have evolved for Upper Egypt in the Early Dynastic period, and aspects of this system may have been inherited from the preceding Predynastic period (Helck 1954:81).
Possibly the earliest type of local administrator in Upper Egypt was the office of ‘mayor’ (h3tỉ- ). This title is first attested on a sealing from the tomb of Merneith, where it occurs in conjunction with the name of the official Sekh-ka (Petrie 1900: pl. XXII.32). The title recurs on a Third Dynasty sealing from Beit Khallaf (Kaplony 1963, III: fig. 324), and the overseer of a mining expedition to the Wadi Maghara in the reign of Sekhemkhet also held the title h3tỉ- (Gardiner and Peet 1952: pl. I). (Exceptionally, the title h3tỉ- occurs in the context of nome administration in the tomb inscription of Pehernefer; he apparently held the office of ‘mayor’ of the Busiris nome of Lower Egypt
[Martin-Pardey 1976:40].) Another title applied in the later Third Dynasty to Upper Egyptian administrators, hq3, is undoubtedly a very ancient designation of office. In the reign of Den, Setka bore the title hq3 (Emery 1958: pl. 82.38), though a connection with provincial administration is not made explicit. A seal-impression from a Third Dynasty context at Elephantine mentions the governor (hq3) of a locality called ỉtỉ-t3w (Kaplony 1963, III: figs 282, 285–6; Seidlmayer 1996b: 121) whilst the governor of the island community itself bore the title ỉmỉ-r3 3bw, ‘overseer of Elephantine’ (Leclant and Clerc 1993:250; Pätznick, in Kaiser et al. 1995:181 and 182, fig. 29a; Seidlmayer 1996b: 113). During the course of the Third Dynasty, the title hq3 seems to have been superseded by a different administrative designation, sšm-t3. This is first attested on a stone vessel from the Step Pyramid galleries (Lacau and Lauer 1965: pl. 28.5) and was the title borne by Metjen in connection with Upper Egyptian regions at the end of the Third Dynasty. The transition from the earlier to the later designation seems to have been gradual, since both titles are attested for the sixteenth Upper Egyptian nome in the Second Dynasty (Martin- Pardey 1976:63).
In the reign of Netjerikhet, the high official Hesira bore the title wr m w Šm w, ‘greatest of the tens of Upper Egypt’. This may indicate a position in the provincial administration, since in the Sixth Dynasty the same title carried responsibility for conscripting men for corvée labour in the particular districts under the official’s control (Wood 1978:15). Further, it has been suggested that the variation in the lists of titles carved on the relief panels from Hesira’s tomb ‘might reflect (his) official functions in various geographical districts’ (Wood 1978:20).
The origins of the nome system
As an administrative mechanism, the nome system—the division of Egypt into regional administrative units—allowed the king to appoint trusted officials to various specific duties which were easiest to undertake on a regional basis, such as irrigation and tax assessment (Martin-Pardey 1976:22). The nomes of Lower Egypt, apparently based on the location of royal domains, probably originated as collection points for agricultural produce destined for the royal treasury (Helck 1954:80). There is considerable uncertainty about whether the nome system was originally devised for Lower Egypt or for Upper Egypt. Its main purpose was to allow a tighter, more uniform control of the provinces by the state (Martin-Pardey 1976:28). This would probably have been a greater concern with respect to the regions of Upper Egypt, more distant from the capital and traditionally more independent-minded than the Delta. However, the nome sign itself depicts an area of irrigated land, and this has suggested to some that the system originated in Lower Egypt. The north of the country seems to have lacked any well-defined, pre- existing political structures, and it was therefore more suited to the imposition of a new system of central control by the state (Martin-Pardey 1976:25). Moreover, the similarities in terminology between the administration of royal domains and the early nome system tend to suggest a direct link between the two.
The division of E
gypt into nomes clearly occurred at some point before the beginning of the Third Dynasty (Martin-Pardey 1976:18). A seal-impression from Abydos dating to the reign of Netjerikhet may show the standard of the eighth Upper Egyptian nome, the Thinite nome (Newberry 1909: pl. XXIII.VIII; Martin-Pardey 1976:33), suggesting that
the system was already in existence. Ink inscriptions on stone vessels from the Step Pyramid complex, plausibly dated to the reign of Ninetjer (Helck 1979:129), show the sign of the sixteenth Upper Egyptian nome, as does a seal-impression from the tomb of Khasekhemwy. A fragmentary sealing of Sekhemib from the tomb of Peribsen also appears to show the lower part of a nome standard (Petrie 1901: pl. XXI.172). Some scholars have suggested that the nome system was established as a deliberate policy of the early state at the time of Egypt’s political unification (Kaiser, quoted in Martin- Pardey 1976:29; Martin-Pardey 1976:19), arguing that a system of regional administration would have been essential for the cohesion of the newly unified state (Martin-Pardey 1976:40). Others have linked the origins of the nome system to the new economic demands created by pyramid-building (Helck, quoted in Martin-Pardey 1976:30). The latter view may be rejected since the earliest occurrences of nome standards pre-date the beginning of the Third Dynasty, and substantial building projects—which would have required the mobilisation of considerable manpower and resources—were undertaken during the first two dynasties, notably the enclosures of Khasekhemwy at Hierakonpolis and Abydos.
Early Dynastic Egypt Page 20